A Reduction in Force A Legal Analysis

Legal Analysis

A Reduction in Force ("RIF") is legal in the United States for legitimate business necessity. Employers undertaking a RIF in the United States are expected to consider the federal laws, contractual terms, and advance notice obligations to avoid any claims of discrimination from employees (Connolly Jr, Connolly, & Feinstein, 2018). Human Resource (HR) professionals are tasked with the responsibility of managing employees within an organization. The HR manager is expected to refer to the laws that govern employees' rights and obligations while performing their duties.

There are dire consequences for an organization that violates the employees' rights, such as lawsuits, financial losses, and reputation damage. The HR manager should be familiar with legislations such as Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws that protect against discrimination of any person based on age, nationality, religion, disability, sex, or pregnancy. The wage and hours laws are also significant to the HR manager since they dictate the wages and number of working hours for an individual. Several other labor regulations, such as employee benefits laws, immigration laws, and workplace safety laws. The HR manager should consider all these laws before making any decision that concerns the employees to avoid liability (Mathis et al., 2017)

Analysis

Ali Sanders, being a naturalized American citizen his termination may be perceived as discrimination based on his citizenship or immigration status. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) is considered a federal law that offers protection to individuals from employment discrimination centered on immigration or citizenship status. Discrimination, harassment, or retaliation against an employee based on race, sex, or religion is also a violation of the law. It points out that it is illegal to discriminate based on national origin or citizenship status in terminating an employee (Rassas, 2020). The 1964 Civil Rights Act Title VII is also a federal law that offers protection for individuals discriminated against based on national origin, sex, age, or religion (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2014). Hence, before terminating Ali Sanders' employment contract, it is important to ensure that the company has not acted in a way that can be termed as discrimination based on immigration status.

Ali is a highly skilled individual employed on a contract basis; hence it is proper to go through the "just cause termination" clause to confirm if the grounds for termination are permissible. According to U.S law, a notice period is not necessary when terminating an individual employment relationship. However, the company will have to prove that there is no form of discrimination and that the company is making changes that including cutting down the number of employees.

Employers are prohibited under U.S. law from selecting employees for termination based on age. The employer is expected to show legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for the termination of the employee. Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") is a federal law that protects older people of 40 years and above against employment discrimination (Notestine, 2000). Sally is a 64-year-old who is protected by this law. She may file for unfair discrimination based on age unless there is a waiver of the federal age discrimination claim. According to the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act ("OWBPA"), the waiver must have been understood and signed by Sally's and with direction from an attorney.

Sally is an administrative assistant in charge of the online store. However, the online store has failed to mean that there cannot be an administrative assistant if it failed. Even though Sally is great at her job, she has missed 14 days in the last two months, making her unreliable. Her employment termination contract is justifiable based on the indispensability. However, it will be wise to consider a severance package since she has worked at the company for a long time and has children to care for. This is an agreement between the employer and the employee in which the employer provides a severance package in exchange for the employee's assurance not to sue the employer. It includes a lump sum of money, health insurance, continued payment for several years, and an outplacement program's services.

  This is not a mandatory requirement by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) but is entirely dependent on if there was a written contract to provide for a severance payment if the employee handbook documents on the employer's policy states so if the employer has a history of offering severance pay and lastly if the employer orally promises to give a severance payment. Sally will also have a right to health insurance after the termination. According to The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1986, a terminated employee has a right to continued healthcare coverage for a specific period. The law orders any employer with more than 20 employees has to offer a health insurance plan for the employees (Pynes, & Lombardi, 2011). 

Macy Jamison may also be terminated based on Reduction in Force (RIF). Termination of employees for performance problems should be handled separately from termination due to RIF; however, when an employer is tasked with selecting between several employees, performance may be used to support selection for termination (Connolly Jr, Connolly, & Feinstein, 2018). It is important to ensure that the reason for termination is legitimate and non-discriminatory.

Sally missed two months of work in the last twelve months, which does not reflect well on its productivity. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, individuals are protected against racially-based discrimination at the workplace (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2014). It is illegal for an employer to end the employee's contract based on race. Hence, to avoid any liability, it is important to explain to the employee the grounds of termination because the company is incapable of maintaining many employees due to the financial strain and that the decision is not in any way linked to race or color.

Alicia Chin's performance is impressive. She is an Asian-American and a qualified software engineer. Although she is quiet and withdrawn, her area of expertise does not demand socialization; hence, her being anti-social is not a big issue that affects her performance or other employees. She has justified reasons for missing twelve days in the last three months. According to Title VII, the company employer has the responsibility to investigate the complaints of sexual harassment brought against Jeff, the project manager. Afterward, the employer should provide remedies to prevent any future occurrences of sexual harassment (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2014).

Paul Price has no advanced degree; he was hired because he was good at programming. However, the programs were abandoned hence no longer contribute to the company's growth. His age, race, or place of origin is irrelevant in this case. The employee suffers from a disease that affects the way he walks, and he feels like other employees treat him differently because of this. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it is illegal to discriminate against employees with a disability. It is the company's mandate to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled employees (Walsh, 2015). To avoid any liability, the company will have to demonstrate that Paul's termination was not based on discrimination but on the fact that accommodating him would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business. This is because the company has financial issues, the programming was abandoned, and the online business was shut down. Thus, having him on the team would be an unnecessary and undue burden to the employer.